Sunday, February 28, 2010

Just In Case You Didn't Believe That There Is A Gay Agenda

In the comments section of Does the Bible Deal With Sexual Orientation? A black, homosexual, humanist/atheist who delivers the blog AUSFHART (which is the German word for exit) delivered the following commentary:
"The job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists( the black church) who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us ( like Supt. Burnett who believes in a Bible that deems him a descendant of Ham: a slave).

Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest anti-gay sentiment.

Therefore, you Negros can pontificate till judgement day, but this Black, gay man will lobby, vote, influence, and agitate for equality. Hey, you hetero Negros cannot make marriage work( marriage rate has plummeted from 70% to 30% currently) so let us Black gays set the example for education achievement, wealth building, family dynamics, child rearing, marriage bliss, love, sex, and overall successful living. You know I'm telling the truth!" ~ February 28, 2010 9:29 AM
Are We At A Loss? What Are We To Say?

I would guess that comments like this would make those cower who really didn't know the truth and chose to live in ignorance. Even children today watching advertisements and the parading of gay individuals, can easily see that gays have an agenda and that agenda is not only for equality, as AUSFHART suggests, but it is about domination, and suppression of anything that doesn't include it, honor it, or make room for it. If it were not for the fact that we've known for a number of years that the gay agenda is what it is, ie: an agenda, I guess we would be caught off guard with sentiments such as these. So in short we are not at a loss for words, neither are we surprised by radical homosexuals such as this. Let's discuss a few aspects of this confusion 

The Analysis Of AUSFAHRT's Statements & Assertions

1- Proponents Of The Homosexual Agenda Commonly Promote Religious & Class Discrimination

AUSFAHRT starts off by saying what the "job of the gay community" is not, and then goes on to deliver the biggest "straw-man", "red herring" and down right lie ever told in history. He states that

1- The "black church" is religious extremists (not full of them, we ARE them)
2- That church exists to castigate homosexuals and or drop h-bomb on all of them if possible.

First, I have not read any literature where any church, black or white (by tradition) has said anything close to what AUSFAHRT asserts. What this is called is sensationalism and extremism. The comment has no bearing in truth and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, but yet he calls the "black church" extremists. Further, the comment is a complete lie designed to stereotype, castigate, humiliate and demonize anyone in the "black church" who stands against homosexuality and in favor of the traditional family (ie: marriage between one man and one woman) as outlined and endorsed in the word of God.

Thus point one of the gay agenda is revealed. Dehumanize, and discriminate against ANYONE who does not agree that homosexuality is an acceptable practice and demonize those who would stand against such practice. In other words, what the proponents of the gay agenda do is not only lie to create a case, but also while clamouring for preferential treatment because of the way they have sex, is stereotype (a technique often found in circles of racism) encouraging class, social, political and racial discrimination. Sentiments such as his may be designed to rally the troops in favor of the gay agenda, but they also speak falsely against the church, and fosters and promotes religious and class discrimination. That is very telling. 

2- Proponents Of The Homosexual Agenda, Although Critical Of The Bible, Often Do Not Know The Bible.

In AUSFAHRT's case he's at best a humanist. From his statements, what he has bought into, aside from a wealth of misinformation, is the humanist/atheist agenda against God and his church. He asserts that the curse of Canaan was that he was black and a slave. This is the verse from which he promotes his misinformation:

Genesis 9: 24-27~ "24-And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25-And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26-And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27-God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

What the writer does is engage in eisegesis of the chapter and verses and inserts certain modern myth. He reads into the text a myth that Ham and Canaan were black and that those black folk were slaves. Neither assertion stands or hold weight under examination. 

The Canaanites were the inhabitants of Canaan and were displaced by God for their refusal to repent of their sins. They were strong and lived in strong cities: 

Numbers 13:28-33 ~ "28-Nevertheless the people [be] strong that dwell in the land, and the cities [are] walled, [and] very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. 29-The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. 30-And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. 31-But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they [are] stronger than we. 32-And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, [is] a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it [are] men of a great stature. 33-And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

The faithlessness of the people was offset by the faithfulness of Joshua and Caleb:

Numbers 14:6-9 ~ "6-And Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, [which were] of them that searched the land, rent their clothes: 7-And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, [is] an exceeding good land. 8-If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey. 9-Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they [are] bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the LORD [is] with us: fear them not."

First, the inhabitants of the land dwelt in a good land, and secondly they weren't slaves and third, although one could make the case that they were black, that doesn't necessarily hold true nor is it a requirement of scripture or even hinted at within scripture. In fact their race or skin color bears no significance at all.

Canaan "served" the descendants of Shem in that they were the instruments upon which God displayed his ability to carry out his promise. They were not slaves to Israel on a wholesale scale as hinted to and asserted by extremists.

Amazingly, the only other groups who dogmatically assert notions such as this are racists groups. Either white supremacists, Nazis or black racist groups such as The Nation Of Islam who hold out assertions such as this as some kind of standard against whites and Jews. So the writer misrepresents and promotes biblical illiteracy and does not know biblical history or what the "curse of Canaan" was about. Further he only sensationalizes and creates an argument out of thin air. The fact is that the curse of Canaan had more to do with homosexuality than is traditionally taught, but that is a subject for another post and podcast.  

3- Proponents Of The Homosexual Agenda, Often Confuse Teaching Of Biblical Morality And Truth With Hate And Dislike.

AUSFAHRT asserts that their mission is not to get us to 'like" them but to respect them socially and create a moral and legal constraint against teaching against his sexual preference. Once again the assumption is built on at least two faulty premises:

1- Teaching biblical truth and revealing that homosexuality is a violation of God's word and his principles is hatred.
2- That teaching against homosexuality is somehow harmful to greater society.
3- Restrictions of sexual freedom are somehow equal to human rights and racial equality.

Once again, we have a uninformed gay sympathizer who builds on top of his other false assertions and creates additional false assertions. 

First, Aside from biblical admonitions against homosexuality, we have outlined countless reasons why homosexuality is harmful and dangerous to society in our post HIV/AIDS & Health Care Reform What Do We Really Know? Homosexual activity is destructive to the physical body in general, not to mention a spiritual bondage. There is no right reason and or research that can solidly claim that homosexual delivers any benefits to society in general, yet alone benefits to those who engage in the practice of homosexual activity.  

Secondly, the bible is clear. Not telling the truth is the ultimate form of hatred, especially when there are eternal consequences. If the church were to shut it's mouth and not preach against homosexuality it would be practicing the ultimate in hatred especially knowing that those who practice homosexuality will enter the gates of hell. So to assert that a church that engages the homosexual community encouraging them to leave their sins is somehow hatred is plainly a misrepresentation of scripture and a simple LIE which is commonly promoted today.

Third, if we were to say that homosexuality is acceptable, to be fair, why we we also not fight for the rights of pederasts, bigamists, polygamists and the polyamorous? After all these are groups of people who are sexual minorities too are they not? What gives the homosexual preferential treatment in fighting the battle for sexual equality? I know what it is, it is self-exaltation and perversion of the truth that will not allow the homosexual to view their sexual practices as SIN and against God. 

The homosexual wants us to believe that homosexuality is simply a normal diversity. That it is a good practice and as President Obama said, "just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."  

Once again, these assertions are patently FALSE and lies and have no proof and or support. In fact almost every statistic that can be rendered proves that homosexuality is harmful, physically, emotionally and from a spiritual standpoint damning spiritually.

Conclusion

I saved the final observation for this section:

4- Proponents Of The Homosexual Agenda Either Don't Know The Truth Or Crate A Truth To Suit Them.

AUSFAHRT concludes by claiming that justification for homosexuality is heterosexual marital failure and we know he "telling the truth". At least he seems to realize that there is a "truth" and that truth is not necessarily relative to them that review it. In fact if we can know the truth as he asserts, then it is an objective and not relative truth since all can know it. That's at least a good start as most humanists/atheists are reluctant to admit that.

Sadly however, that fact is that he IS NOT telling the truth. Heterosexual marriages certainly distressed is no reason to promote homosexuality. This actually has nothing to do with homosexuality. Secondly, he is being disingenuous and untruthful in his representations and has turned his eye to the actual research and biblical insights that overturn each of his statements. Further he has misrepresented the bible and the biblical narrative regarding slavery and associated that with being black or a "Negro" as he says.

So we say "AUSFAHRT!" to AUSFAHRT. Homosexual propaganda IS NOT the best argument to use on a Christian blog especially with informed readers such as we are. Neither are misrepresentations of the bible the best argument against the bible...however, unlike Nazi Germany, this is a FREE country, and you are entitled to your own opinion. You can come to your own conclusions on matters and there's no love lost. However, please don't expect us follow you to the hell that you are proudly forging your path towards.

Blessed!

29 comments:

  1. I wonder when Ausfahrt will begin to "lobby, vote, influence, and agitate" against the mountains of white gay racism?

    I do believe that most if not all activist homosexuals like ausfahrt stridently seek to legally (and otherwise) restict free speech and the constitutionally allowed free expression of our faith and beliefs. But that doesnt move me in the slightest.

    Biblically, he is helping to set us up for a major move of God in the earth as he will always deliver his own from the snare of the fowler (Ps 91). In that I am confident. No amount of voting, laws, lobbying or the likes will ever remove the truth God has spoken concerning this abomination. They can pass 100 laws, put us all in jails, feed some to the lions, but HIS truth will ring out from rocks.
    What will ausfahrt do then?

    Historically, ausfarht's beliefs are nothing new.

    Racist whites attempted that against American blacks, Hitler did the same thing to European Jewry, satan seeks to do the same against saints of God. So, ausfahrt has bought into a nefarious legacy indeed. And if you examine each instance (one future) all met with greater than tragic results.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is so much easier to believe than think! Therefore the pastor's your job is simple.

    There are more than 40 million Black people. Each Sunday morning too many Negros are treated to excellent music, comfortable seats and ministers who, when they speak, embarrassingly contribute to the lessening of human knowledge. It’s like ignorant people talking about how ignorant other people are. Many, if not most, of the sermons are anti-intellectual, anti-rational and totally committed to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible in 21st century reality. The Black church has lost its meaning, its relevance. And it certainly has no discernible message for what ails the 21st-century black male soul.

    It's comical. It's not obvious I'm Humanist or gay unless I inform you. Constantly, I'm bombarded with solicitations from mostly women and some men (usually pastors) to attend their church. They see the perfect man to bring home to mama: nice looking, tall, educated, professional, young and single black male.

    Certainly, I could fill one of the numerous male vacancy slots in the church and give 10%. But the #1 reason is to fill the void of black male suitors for the numerous desperate female congregants. Church folk are so hospitable and kind; however, upon my disclosure church folk deliver the most evil acts and spew vile rhetoric.

    I get the most comical enjoyment when I introduce my partner to church folk. My partner too is what women consider a "good black man." He's tall, very handsome, and like me - was a baller in college. Daily, we laugh at the women who blatantly offer up sex, give phone numbers, etc.. I wish straight black men would get their sh** together and become better suitors for these professional black women.

    Gosh, look at the time, I gotta go.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So now all black church people are ingorant and cannot speak properly while all black homosexual men are intelligent,educated, good looking and were "ballers" in college?

    Though it does say a lot, your statement. It shows how education and "success" is not all its cracked up to be. The perversion among many at the top knows no bounds, homosexuality and drugs are rampant. You can understand the poor living certain ways but when the well off do it, its a bit confusing (in the flesh that is, its all sin).

    I would rather be uneducated and on my way to glory than to be educated and living a perverted unnatural life. Really "what does it profit a man if he gained the whole world and lost his very soul"? This time will end along with all you have, thats for sure.

    Funny how Christ chose the lesser amongst us, while many of the haves boast of things that will perish.

    1 Corinthians 1:26-29 (King James Version)
    26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
    27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    29That no flesh should glory in his presence.


    Your statement does not come across as educated. Its like a distraction, trying to make believers feel bad about themselves to deflect from your sinful lifestyle. Its like trying to tell someone the truth and they say "nah nah na nah nah", an immature way of dealing with things, that has no merit at all.

    A poor man in Christ will go to heaven, a rich educated, good looking black man without Christ will bust hell wide open. Thats the real situation right there AUSFAHRT. You will either repent and put your faith in Christ and live or you will die in your sins after enjoying the pleasure of your sin.

    Plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul,

    you said:"So now all black church people are ingorant and cannot speak properly while all black homosexual men are intelligent,educated, good looking and were "ballers" in college?"

    Yea I guess us uneducated Christians are so inept that all we can do is read the bible then misinterpret it-LOL!!!

    Radicals like Ausfahrt are certainly not free in their thinking as they claim. They are bound and restricted and can only see their version of truth. It shows that they don't know truth because they misrepresent truth and claim that they aren't doing so...so what does being a "baller" in college have to do with anything?

    Oooh, I know...that's just to say that he had all the women too...yea right! What he had is more than likely a few desperate and misplaced girls just outta their parents house for the first time and they more than likely weren't followers of Christ.

    Anyway, faith is more rational than the irrational assumptions of non-belief...nonbelieves such as this make excuses and explain away any evidences that is presented. They may be creative and fanciful, but certainly not "free" in their thoughts. They are bound to sin.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ausfarht is a slave. I wont list all his masters, but they are many.

    In Christ, there is freedom. And one master.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pastor, the statements are as irrational as they come, sin is the problem. The thoughts will sound polished and sensible to many but when you break them down, they are nothing but an attempt to distract us from the matter at hand.

    Us black church folk are filled with hate and dont know love. We dont want people to have their rights and they even cite scripture.

    I do loathe this constant comparison to black people and racism.

    Well I am a black man and homosexuality is still sin. Black people even in America still have a hard time, at times as you cannot legisate away racism. Even though I have faced racism, I STIL SEE HOMOSEXUALITY AS PERVERSION.

    I am not immune to it either, my mother (influenced by the devil)told me as a youngster that she thought I would be "gay" if not for my dads stance on it and every now and then the devil would pop up with his lying tongue but I cursed that to the root.

    I also have a brother, nephew and cousin who are homosexuals and you know what ITS STILL SIN. Yes and they are black too. I must be a big time hater, even my own blood.

    Paul you obviously have a big problem!

    Lord remove the blindess and draw sinners!

    ReplyDelete
  7. You got me - I surrender! Yes, there is a Gay Agenda.
    The gay agenda is the American agenda.

    Isn't an agenda simply a list or plan of things to be accomplished.
    Sorta like going to an office meeting; there's always an agenda disseminated. Also, like setting goals and meeting the objectives. Yeah? Any and every group, mass of people, org., movement, etc should have a plan. Without a plan you're kinda lost - Right?

    I, like president Obama, continue to make strides to reach and work across the aisle with religious folk; however, such intolerance and conditioned hatred too often make it extremely challenging.

    Too often gays are tormented by ministers or congregants shouting to preserving the sanctity of marriage...Yet, when I dare say divorce is the number one threat to the sanctity of marriage; and it’s even described in the bible as a sin. I ask why aren’t you and your American taliban ( the black church) moving to outlaw it? Suddenly, the religious community goes silent.

    And adultery is one of the commandments for crying out loud. Yet there aren’t any laws making it illegal or punishable. Where's the American Taliban when you need them?

    With 5 million black men incarcerated and or paroled, there wouldn't be any black straight men left if we honestly followed biblical law.

    @gcmw Yes, I'm a slave with many masters:
    1. although I'm the HNIC - I have a boss
    2. my many clients
    3. my mama
    4. my previous coach
    5. and always a sex slave to my Boo :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. AUSFHART,

    Race should have no bearing on the topic at hand. Both primarily white and primarily black churches equally denounce Homosexuality.

    Also, it would appear from your statements that the black Church should be focused on civil rights and social issues rather than the basics of the bible which are repentance and faith.

    I would argue that your direction is misguided in that it assumes that the Black Church is more akin to a wing of the NAACP rather than a community of believers who have repented of their sins and gave their lives to Jesus Christ.

    Finally, addressing race it would seem that you are implying that gay successful black men should be a paradigm of success for the entire black community at large.

    If my assertions are correct then right from the start our foundation of the discussion are completely different.

    Basically what I am trying to express is that your foundation for your argument is that the black Church should be involved in promoting equal rights for gays as the "new" civil rights movement within the black community.

    The reason there can be no agreement is that we as believers view the Church as the epicenter of worship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who saved us from our sins and the subsequent damnation which would have followed if we had not repented.

    In essence you as a humanist and I would assume an atheist or at the very least an agnostic would have an entirely different view of the purpose of the Church.

    We as Christians “literally” believe that there is a God who created everything. We also believe that we are inherently sinful due to the fall of man. We also believe that there is only one person, Jesus Christ, who had the power and authority to take away the sins of the world in which all of those who repented and believed would be saved.

    Now because of this your argument is falling on deaf ears. We can’t “rationalize” with you because you are coming from a humanist view where we are coming from a biblical literalist view.

    Kyle

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anon
    It not about race; it about the black church self-appointed leadership role and talking head for all Black folk. Example. Rev Harry Jackson, a black man from Maryland, established a second residence in DC, washed the hands of more Black regional pastors, and spent tons of money, to stop the DC Equality Marriage Bill. They were unsuccessful.

    Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court REJECTED a request from opponents of gay marriage (Rev. Jackson and others) to put on hold a new law that allows same-sex couples to wed in Washington, DC.

    Yes, they went all the way to the SCOTUS just to stop lil old me!

    However, they had Negros rallying, marching, protesting, to include, TV ads, bus ads, posters, bill boards, etc..In essence, Black church folks spent there last dime and and an enormous amount of resources to fight against my civil right to wed my partner. But these Negros NEVER marched or even rallied against all the ills that plague there comm. Certainly, there is a disconnect between religion and reality.

    What is so wrong with me and my partner wanting the 1,100 federal rights and the 300+ state rights deemed to married couples? This is NOT about Church law- it's all about State law!

    There is a disconnect between religion and reality. In reality, I want nothing from you nor the Black church. I don't want to attend your church, associate with your church, attend Easter Sunday, or Mothers Day. If the Black church banned every gay from it - that's fine too. We don't need you! We have our own. JUST LEAVE US ALONE!

    ReplyDelete
  10. ausfahrt said

    We don't need you! We have our own. JUST LEAVE US ALONE!

    1 - marriage is an institution of God and not man so man cannot define it.

    2- The Church also has civil rights, so we are within our "rights" to come out against something, especially when it be forced down our throats.

    3- No one is telling you that you cannot have sex with another man, you have all the freedom in the US to do it.

    4- you say, leave us alone but please tell us how we will not be forced to accept your lifestyle? its being taught in schools as norm but we dont agree with it.

    5 - Homosexual freedom under the guise of civil rights, forces people to look at it as ok and if you dont you are a bigot and a hater.

    6 - why do even bother with the Church? your president is 100% behind you. He said he wants same sex relationships to be looked at the same was as a man and wife?

    7- Also if you want to be left alone why on earth did you come on this blog. Pastor Harvey did not hunt you down, I am sure, but here you are. To that I would ask why dont you leave the Church alone?

    8 - The Church actually is not against you personally but your agenda. Most Church people who I know want all men to be saved regardless.

    In Christ there is hope if you repent and believe.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Paul
    You state, "marriage is an institution of God..." Marriage to me is 1,100 Federal benefits and 300+ State benefits; God got nothing to do with it.

    Paul, I simply left a comment without expectation it would become a post on this blog. You also state, "The Church actually is not against you personally but your agenda." Paul, in esseence, Carter G. Woodson said it best: When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. The Black church is a perfect example.

    Marriage Equality can only benefit the Black community- not harm it! The socioeconomic status of many communities and neighborhoods will bloosom. Trust me, your home value will increase as soon as gay couples move in the neighborhood . Don’t you know, gays are sought out to revitalize neighborhoods – seriously. Why? Gay’s are God’s chosen people. :-) We are real survivors! Also, we bring in the tools and resources to get the job done. And that’s the Undisputed Truth!

    ReplyDelete
  12. ausfahrt,

    I think one of the problems with the idea of gays being a viable group, segment, or culture is that it lacks one of the most important aspects of such distinction and that is procreation and sustainability.

    For example, since we are talking about the “Black Church” let us consider racism and slavery. Both of these ugly blights on the world scene had the potential of eradicating a whole people and culture.

    Peoples and cultures are defined by their traditions and origins of which can only be maintained by handing down the things which that culture deems important to each subsequent generation within that group. This dissemination of information within the specific group can only be accomplished by procreating.

    Homosexuals on the other hand do not fit that definition and therefore the argument that being gay is similar to the despicable acts of injustices foisted upon a race are mutually exclusive. Homosexuals cannot claim a direct lineage, homeland, or culture because it is defined merely by a proclivity.

    Homosexuality is defined by a behavior and does not qualify as being akin to the often mentioned, Segregation of the 1960s = Homosexuality of the present. This is nothing more than a straw man argument often stated by homosexuals attempting to legitimize their behavior.

    Kyle

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ausfahrt,

    The reason your post became a subject of interest is because you made so many stereotypical and fallacious comments that it was wort examining especially IF you represent mainstream homosexuality...For all the reasons that have been discussed you're most certainly misguided.

    1- Homosexuality is not nor has it ever been a standard for family practice, morality and social or moral right. Just because you prefer having sex with men, doesn't make that practice any more valuable to society than any number of what I consider to be sexual perversions and unless you're willing to fight for them also you're hypocritical. Fight for the polygamists rights, then the polyamorous rights, then pedophile rights, then bigamists rights and the list goes on...

    As sexual preference ie: CHOICE of life whether realized or not, isn't worthy in a facilitation of law unless you are willing to trash any sort of moral standards whereby society functions. With you and your free-thought fellows objective morality is trashed in place of subjective and relativistic standards of morality which is the same thing that you're pushing and promoting...

    2- Another thing you claim is that heterosexual marriage is in bad shape. That's not quite the truth. As with any institution things could be better, but the benefits of marriage are far beyond anything that has ever resulted from homosexual unions.

    Example: A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on heterosexual marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66% of first marriages last ten years or longer, with 50% lasting twenty years or longer.~ [Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States,"] Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001).

    Here's what we find regarding homosexual relationships:

    In July 2000, Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions. Three years later, the University of Vermont conducted a poll of the state's homosexual men. When asked whether sex outside of marriage was immoral, only 34% of the homosexual men, who claimed to be in committed relationships, found anything wrong with extramarital sex...Anne Peplau, psychology professor at UCLA, stated, "There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people?but this is not typically harmful to their relationships because partners agree that it's acceptable."
    ~ Source: [Amy Fagan, "Study Finds Gay Unions Brief,"] The Washington Times, July 11, 2003.

    In what twisted universe is multiple sexual relationship apart and outside of marriage beneficial for ANY community or health for society in any manner?

    'The Advocate' , a leading periodical within the gay community, released the results of a survey taken in August 1994, showing that 57% of gay men have had sex with more than thirty partners. This survey also revealed that 48% of homosexuals had participated in a ?three-way? during the previous 5-year period.~['The Advocate Sex Poll,' The Advocate, August 1994.]

    Over HALF of gay men engage in perverted sexual activity with multiple partners...this is what a GAY magazine reports. What's wrong with this picture?

    Here's another:
    In the October 1996 issue of Genre magazine, a survey of 1,037 homosexual readers was released. It found that 52% of homosexual men have had sex in a public park, while 46% admitted to having sex in a public restroom.~ ["Sex Poll," 'Genre magazine, October 1996.]

    This is what children are bombarded with..perverts displaying in front of them...Gay folk routinely want everyone to know they're gay in public...excessive displays of affection...the problem is SIN and PERVERSION not the black church!

    ReplyDelete
  14. The June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Public Health shared a survey of sexually active homosexual men. The results revealed that the study?s participants averaged seven sex partners in just the previous six months, while 25% of respondents claimed to have had sex with 18 or more partners during the previous six months.~ ["Sexual Suicide: The Rebellion of Homosexuality Causes Untold Suffering,? Agape Press, September 29, 2003.]

    The fact is that every time a study is done, the stats are WORSE of the gay community and members of it...here's another in 2003

    FACT : Recently, the Associated Press reported a similar study of "gay" men conducted in Los Angeles County. This study revealed that 50% of the gay men said they had sex with an average of 28 partners over the preceding six months.~["Sexual Suicide: The Rebellion of Homosexuality Causes Untold Suffering,? Agape Press, September 29, 2003.]

    Two independent reports from the American Journal Of Public Health and a report done in California. That's why I commend Californians for at least rising to keep this plague from being sanctioned by the state. Is that enough?

    Then there are the mental issues associated with the homosexual lifestyle. I've documented this on this site, but here's one for the road:

    In December 2003, a study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry revealing the mental differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Surveying a total of 1,161 men (656 self-identified homosexuals, 505 self-identified heterosexuals) and 1,018 women (430 self-identified lesbians, 588 self-identified heterosexuals), the researchers claimed, "Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health."~ [M. King, E. McKeown, J. Warner, A. Ramsay, K. Johnson, C. Cort, L. Wright, R. Blizard, and O. Davidson, "Mental Health and Quality of Life of Gay Men and Lesbians in England and Wales," British Journal of Psychiatry (December 2003), pp. 183, 552-558.]

    You claim to be a survivor, your wounds however are self inflicted. You are a promoter of murder and one who promotes further devastation of the gay community by advocating for it like you do. Don't be a part of something that is devastating for almost all of it's members...that is IF you care about society more than yourself!

    Now these are facts, deal with them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good stuff Kyle,

    Homosexuality is not a race, gender, culture or even people with disabilties whether it be physically or mentally, that you could understand the need to fight for civil rights. Its is simply a choice of death as you.

    Pastor as you have said should one fight for all sexual perversion because we deem one ok due to sin? I have had people tell me that nothing is wrong with beastiality and wasnt it Mr. Milk who said that people should be happy when an older man dates their son? He advocted for having sex with those underage. Should people who think like this fight for civil rights because thats how they "feel"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pastor not to mention the HIV rate amongst homosexuals and the fact that they die at an earlier age.

    I mean, how can that be good, common sense says something is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So here we have individuals dealing themselves a self inflicted wound and saying they are "survivors"??? What kinda bogus reasoning is that???

    At least come with an argument that can be supported by teh facts...the bible can be supported by the facts...heterosexual marriage can be supported by the fact that it is GOOD for individual health and the health of society in general...CNN recently reported on the Nation Center for Public health's findings regarding marriage...Heterosexsuals have a better quality of life overall...now this is FACT.

    Insurance companie know this also. Acuarial data confirms it in just about every line of insurance. That's why most application ask now if a person is married. They also know that the risk of homosexuality has not been figured into teh rates! homosexuality has an adverse effect on the rates and rate calculations for everyone. Believe me, I am aware of some of the current discussions.

    Married folk and heterosexuals should be aware of other marital and relationship statistics that indirectly confirm tha thet bible application for life and relationships WORKS without a doubt. Anopther issue is premarital sex, which has NO BENEFIT for a marriage. One such study can be found HERE and the NY Times article that caught CNN's eyes HERE.

    The more i read and study, I'm convinced that homosexuality is ONLY a political issue. It isn't favored because it's benefits society in any way...it's simply political and driven by dollars and politics!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul,

    ABSOLUTELY right. morally right positions aren't decided based on how one "feels". People can "feel" anythign and that certainly doesn't make it right...Committment to truth and right standards are beyond "feelings"...Like you said why not 'feel" for those who want to participate in beastiality??? Why? Because THEY don't like it...

    This is cartoon morality at best!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Paul,

    I personally believe that's what's behind health care reform. I discuss that HERE. Now, I agree that health care should be reformed, but there is an untold story behind all of this, and I am aware of it.

    The heads of these companies won't say such because billions of dollars are on the line, but this fight is NOTHING like it was for racial equality. How can someone be exalted because of the way they have sex? Silly!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi folks. I've linked to this discussion over at the SMRT forums, where we will likely discuss it to some extent. All of you are welcome to read, join in or ignore us as you see fit.

    The one thing I should mention is that we're a small group and the comments are unmoderated. I can't guarantee that everything you read will be civil or respectful, but I promise that *I* will be so.

    In any case, it's friday. Have a safe healthy and happy weekend...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Whateverman,

    If it weren't for the fact that you somewhat misrepresent the facts and the discussion, I guess you would be allright...example: Paul hasn't represented himself as someone "at the top of society" and I haven't addressed and don't care about Ausfahrt's successor failure with women, in addition I certainly don't call unbelievers irrational. To suggest these things is to read into the conversation what you wish to slant your conversation towards an angle that YOU wish to address.

    Personally, I'll keep my convo right here but you're welcome to join in without being banned as long as you continue to do here what you say you do on your site...I would most certainly appreciate that...and I do know that disagreement DOES NOT mean disrespect...so I don't mind disagreement for whatever reason. I expect that. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry, Pastor Bennet. Maybe I wrote it poorly, but I meant that Paul referred to Ausfart as being at the top of society.

    As for my writing that bit about (you thinking) Ausfart failed with the girls, the bit in your first comment: "he had all the women too...yea right! What he had is more than likely a few desperate and misplaced girls just outta their parents house for the first time"

    If I misunderstood that, my apologies. I'll reword it.

    As for the unbelievers being rational, you wrote this: faith is more rational than the irrational assumptions of non-belief. Maybe I'm guilty of of overemphasizing your point, but it seems to me that I characterized it correctly. If you're willing, can you restate it for me so that I better understand you?

    ---

    I cross posted this stuff and let you know about it to be honest both to you and the readers at our humble forum. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine - for all I know, it might not generate any interest in our group either; participate only if you want to.

    If the conversation stays here, I'll be lurking to see what happens. To be perfectly honest, the behavior of the black church and of black homosexuals really isn't something I'm exposed to - and I hesitate to comment too much on it for that reason. Heck, the same holds true for white churches and white homosexuals for that matter; they're not part of the stuff I usually see, hear or talk about.

    In any case, thanks for the feedback, Pastor.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Whoops, typo in one of my sentences above (4th paragraph). I meant the following: "As for the unbelievers being irrational"

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is the last I'll spam your blog today, but I think I owe you my opinion on the discussion here. It's not entirely fair to hold up the conversation as being noteworthy without at least trying to participate in it...

    My opinion has to do with the following comment from Paul: marriage is an institution of God and not man so man cannot define it.

    Unfortunately, it's plainly clear that man HAS defined it. Whether there's a religious component to it or not, there are very real non-religious benefits provided by the state to couples who get married legally. Blood tests must be performed, papers signed, and taxation implications when two people get married. In other words, man has already put his mark on the institution - it is neither purely god-made nor is it purely man-made.

    The minute married couples stop receiving benefits which are unavailable to single people, marriage can be safely defined only by religious institutions. Until that point, however, marriage is most definitely defines by human beings, at least in part.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You did good Whateverman.

    The comment about the women in Ausfahrt's life was in response that he seems to think the women were simply falling all over him, which well may have been the displaced as I referenced. His success or failure with them wasn't in question...or at least I didn't mean to question that...

    So far as "irrational assumptions of nonbelief" I actually believe that one can reject God and think rationally as to why they do so. Just as one can accept God and think rationally as to why they do so also. I think there is way too much time psychoanalyzing one another. However there are some irrational assumption of nonbelief, but to be fair some irrational suumptions of belief also.

    So hopefully that clears up my position. I don't mean to suggest that non believers are irrational. That's wrong. Although teh champions of non belief (atheism) say that believers are irrational for belief...I think NOTHING is further from the truth. So rational and sane people on both sides of the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Whateverman

    Institute - to originate and get established

    Define - a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word)

    Reading these definitions, if you are a believer in Christ and see the bible as infallibale you can see that my statement is correct regarding marriage being an instituted by The Almighty, He is the originator of it.


    Genesis 2:18-24
    The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

    The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."

    For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


    Check this out
    Deuteronomy 24:5
    If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

    Matthew 19:4-6
    Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

    Colossians 3:18,19
    Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. cont:

    Ephesians 5:22-33
    Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


    also read
    1 Corinthians 7: 1-16

    What you have put forth is that man has defined marriage, obviously not. Gods word has defined marriage and man has piggy backed off of what the bible says.

    Further more, you can go to a remote place that have no written rules and you will see that marriage is very similar to what God has put forth, there is a law written in mans heart afterall.
    Romans 2:14-15 (King James Version)

    14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

    15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)


    Throughout the world marriage is seen mostly the same, one man & one woman, irregardless of governmental rights.

    There are certain rights and privileges to being married in America, I agree, but without the government marriage would still be marriage in the eyes of God.

    There was a time when black people did not have civil rights in american but they still got married.

    Marriage stands civil rights, government of not. and actually if you get into marriage for what ausfahrt said:

    "Marriage to me is 1,100 Federal benefits and 300+ State benefits; God got nothing to do with it."

    I would say that you have totally missed the point. As a married man, I know I wouldve married my wife if I didnt have any of these. That is cheapening what marriage is supposed to be in its truest form - a loving relationship between a man and a woman, that glorifies the Most High.

    Blessings!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pastor, I totally agree with you that homosexuality is a political agenda that is empowered by the money that can be attained.

    I have no doubt also that those who are in power, like those in hollywood are some twisted people with an anti Christ agenda that think they have all wisdom and that God is trying to control them. They believe that sexual freedom affords some type of enlightenment that we who follow Gods rule dont get.

    NOt sure if you have seen this video series on youtube by the Subscribe TheForerunner777? Its very informative and goes in detail about some of the things behind the homosexual agenda.

    HOMO-GENIZ-NATION (PT 1)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3udI1ltCZ4s

    just found this online also.

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. Paul,

    Thanks for sharing and extremely good commentary. The most critcs fail to see God in anything and curses the idea that he is the one who instituted anything of value upon the earth, but the evidence is clear to me...God is the only reason that the institution of marriage is valuable as it is...

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.